Talk:Battle of St Matthew's

Biased title?

The title of this article is surely biased, as this is what the incident is known as specifically by Republicans and Republican publications. It also makes a judgement on the event. The article itself claims that it is unclear how the incident started. If the incident had started as a simple sectarian clash, then perhaps "battle" would be the appropriate description. If, on the other hand, it started with the IRA taking pot shots at an Orange parade returning from the city centre, then the word "battle" is less appropriate. --81.135.27.251 (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What other names does it hav? It's commonly known as the "Battle of St Matthews" or "Battle of Short Strand". Furthermore, gunfire was coming from both sides; that's what's call'd a gun battle. ~Asarlaí 13:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Unionist family

What makes the Shankill Road Ulster loyalist but East Belfast unionist? Gob Lofa (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

To take a stab in the dark... because the Shankill Road is an area that is predominantly and unashamedly loyalist with strong links and ties to loyalist paramilitary groups. East Belfast on the other hand is a major division of the city that encompasses loyalist areas such as the Lower Newtownards Road as well as the nationalist Short Strand, along with the more moderate unionists that predominant the further east you go. The Shankill Road is simply a major road in Belfast, East Belfast is a major division big enough to merit its own seat at Westminster. Also considering the previous MP for East Belfast was from the "small-u unionist" Alliance party, it would be hard to call East Belfast loyalist. Certain parts of it yes, but not the whole entity. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, that seems fair enough. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Commencement date of The Troubles

Discussion on the talk page at The Troubles indicates how difficult it is to pinpoint their beginning, but that is evidence that supports my edit. I altered a sentence that was dogmatic on that point and made it more nuanced. I fail to see how that can be viewed as sufficiently contentious to justify reversion. Please advise. Harfarhs (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for going to talk however you have still ignored the Troubles restriction you were notified of as well as the principle of WP:BRD by not reverting your restoration of your challenged edit. The edit is unneeded and adds nothing to the article and will be reverted until you have WP:Consensus for it.

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source in an article and each article is their own so saying because it has a paragraph giving background to the start of it is not a valid reason. Futhermore the second paragraph of [1] makes clear the problem. As a native of the country in question and living through the Troubles, I can testify that the majority of media and such pin the start in August 1969 starting with the Battle of the Bogside. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I have not ignored anything. I have refrained from reverting your reversion, which was all that was necessary under WP:1RR. It is a great shame that you should attempt to bully someone with your supposed credentials and knowledge of WP. If your viewpoint had the slightest validity you would have been able to impose it on the editors who have (justifiably) produced a very different account in The Troubles. I am entirely convinced that you are incapable of assuming good faith, so this conversation is permanently at an end. Any further communication from you will be reported at the highest level in WP. Good night. Harfarhs (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Reported for informing you of the Troubles restrictions which you violated (note I didn't report it as I assumed good faith assuming you were unaware of it) and to respect WP:BRD? Surely good faith would of been to restore the article to the state prior to your challenged edit and to not make threats of reporting an editor for what exactly?

Regardless, you stated in your edit summary that it "certainly" did start before August 1969 yet state here-to which I also provided a highly credible and respected link to-that the date of its commencement in disputed. So which is it? Did it certainly start before August 1969 or is it disputed? Your edit didn't help with any nuances on the issue in my view. You are free to open a RfC for more input if you wish. I will also note however that if we were to use other Wikipedia articles as vindication and evidence then you are contradicted by 1969 Northern Ireland riots, of which the last sentence of the lede clearly states August is widely seen as the start date, but then again we can't use Wikipedia articles as evidence.

The Troubles article as already stated is a different article however like this one still has many problems mostly from certain overt and subtle bias that provides a distorted "factual" narrative that ignores or misrepresents key events. Sadly I and other editors don't have the time or resources to trawl all articles to help fix these problems. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)